The Instigator
buildingapologetics
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
cakerman
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Abortion on Demand Should Be Illegal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
03days15hours03minutes29seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/29/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 6 days ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 386 times Debate No: 106222
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)

 

buildingapologetics

Pro

I am pro life, and I believe abortion on demand should be illegal at all stages. If you believe abortion should be legal on demand, you may present your case first.

By on demand, I mean for any reason. This is not about instances of rape, incest, or the safety of the mother. This is over the issue of whether a mother should be able to get an abortion whenever she wants to.

Since this issue revolves around when life begins, I ask my opponent to provide the criteria that they believe must be satisfied before the baby has a right not to be killed.
cakerman

Con

Hello buildingapologetics, and thank you for opening up the possibility of debate!

Seeing as I have written a plethora of material related to the debate on abortion, I will use some of said material for my round 1 argument.


1. Historical context

Abortion is nearly as old as civilization is. Abortion has been practiced for thousands of years, although earlier abortion was primarily practiced via extensive physical labor. Assuming we are talking about legality in The United States, the historical context here is a bit different considering how young the country is. In America, abortion was legal in the country's infancy but was illegalized, one of the reasons was due to a lack of desire to have the population dominated by the children of immigrants, the strongest force behind the drive to criminalize abortion was the attempt by doctors to establish for themselves exclusive rights to practice medicine. They wanted to prevent “untrained” practitioners, including midwives, apothecaries, and homeopaths, from competing with them for patients and for patient fees. The best way to accomplish their goal was to eliminate one of the principle procedures that kept these competitors in business. Rather than openly admitting to such motivations, the newly formed American Medical Association (AMA) argued that abortion was both immoral and dangerous. By 1910 all but one state had criminalized abortion except where necessary, in a doctor’s judgment, to save the woman’s life. In this way, legal abortion was successfully transformed into a “physicians-only” practice. As you and I are aware the ruling on abortion being illegal was overturned in 1973 with Roe V. Wade and is now constitutionally justified in the united states, so long as it's performed by a trained medical practitioner.

2. Consequences of illegal abortion

The consequences for making abortion legal are only bad to America's citizens and result in more death than legal abortion. Before roe v wade it's estimated that 1.2 million women would seek out abortions per year, and be forced to get illegal, or "back-alley" abortions, which resulted in many thousands of deaths of women and their fetuses.

3. Human rights

You would call it a human right to force the woman to have an unwanted child, I would call that oppression. By taking away a woman's right to choose whether or not she must have a child regardless of the circumstance, you effectively oppress the woman by giving her fewer rights than the fetus that is using her organs to sustain itself. There are laws put in place that say that no one can use your organs or blood, regardless if you are dead or living, and regardless of how many people it would benefit or even save. Giving a fetus unlimited rights to use a woman's organs without her consent effectively gives a dead person more rights than a pregnant mother, and that isn't (in my opinion) how we should treat it.

4. Faults with contraception

A common argument presented within the pro-life community is "Why don't you just use a form of contraception?" and the answer is quite simple. Contraception fails and fails a lot more than most people would think.
Debate Round No. 1
buildingapologetics

Pro

Cakerman, thank you for your reply. I will begin by examining the issue of when life begins. I will then move on to explain what I believe to be the logical implications.

I intend to show that at the moment of conception, a brand new living human person is created.
It has been my experience that those who are pro-choice tend to flip-flop all over the place when they are asked to give a standard for when a fetus becomes a living human person. I ask you, cakerman, to establish a particular set of criteria so that, when all of these criteria are met, the fetus becomes a living human person with the right not to die. I ask you to include all criteria that you think are relevant to deciding if it is a human life so that you don't have to add on any more criteria later on in the debate.
For example, if you agree that a fetus is a living human person after it is both viable and has a heartbeat, then please do not add another criterion of brain activity later on. State all the criteria that you intend to use right off the bat.

I believe a fetus is a living human person at conception. It is human because it has a 100% human genetic code, the only objective way of determining species. Secondly, it is living because every functioning cell in our body is living according to the 7 characteristics that scientists use to determine life. Thirdly, I believe it should be counted as a person because any other point is automatically inconsistent. I will analyze those points when you provide your criteria for when the fetus becomes a person.

If the fetus is a living human person at that point, then killing it would be just as terrible as killing any other living human persons. Killing it would be a homicide. Obviously, illegalizing abortion would cause more unsafe abortions that could endanger the mothers. My answer is rather blunt: I care about the child's life, but if a mother tries to kill her child, she ought to die. This pro-choice argument is so fallacious. It would be like saying if we make raping children illegal, then child rapists might get hurt in the process. Of course, they will get hurt in the process as they should if they are committing such an evil act. If an abortion is a murder, we don't want mothers to be safe when killing their children. The only sad part is that the fetus would die in the process, but that would have happened anyway if abortion were legal.

While I do not believe some person's rights should trump the same rights of another, I do believe some rights are inherently more valuable. For example, my right not to be murdered by you is greater than your right to do whatever you want with your body. Similarly, in the case of the pregnant mother, the mother's right of convenience is less than the child's right not to be murdered. Remeber, this is about abortion on demand, so we are not talking about rape, incest, or the safety of the mother. You could imagine a case in which contraception fails, but the mother still bears responsibility for her child. All contraception has a risk, and by engaging in sex, you automatically are responsible for those risks and responsibilities. You can't simply murder another person because it didn't work out. The baby, if it is a living human person, has the simple human right of not being killed.

"There are laws put in place that say that no one can use your organs or blood, regardless if you are dead or living, and regardless of how many people it would benefit or even save. "
There are several problems with this. First, this obviously doesn't apply to pregnant mothers, otherwise, pregnancy would be illegal. Secondly, even if the law makes something legal, it does not mean it is morally okay. Abortion is also legal, but it is not morally okay. We are arguing philosophically and scientifically what ought to be, not what law is.

It seems to me we have four possibilities when it comes to abortion.
1) It is a life, and you know it.
2) It is a life, and you don't know it.
3) It is not a life, and you know it.
4) It is not a life, and you don't know it.

The first case should be illegal because that is 1st-degree murder. The second case should be outlawed because that would be manslaughter. The third case is actually the only one that is legally and morally justifiable. Therefore, if abortion on demand should be legal, my opponent had the burden of demonstrating that a fetus is not a life and we can certainly know that. If it even could be a life, it should not be killed.

Lastly, I would like to point out that the greatest evils in the history of mankind have occurred because people have decided who and who is not a human based on personal convenience. Slaveholders said black people were not human so that they could have slaves. Nazis said Jews were not human so that they could kill them, and mothers say their children are not human so that they can kill their child. Anyone who calls their own child a burden and wants to kill it should bring tears to our eyes. We are witnessing the greatest Holocaust the world has ever seen.
cakerman

Con

Thank you for your timely response, and I apologize for mine being untimely. I will begin with rebuttals.

It has been my experience that those who are pro-choice tend to flip-flop all over the place when they are asked to give a standard for when a fetus becomes a living human person. I ask you, cakerman, to establish a particular set of criteria so that, when all of these criteria are met, the fetus becomes a living human person with the right not to die.

A fetus is already a person at conception, I don't believe anyone who is serious about the pro-choice debate really disputes this fact, because doing so would be disingenuous. My criteria for when a fetus should be legally protected from abortion, just to be on the safer side (for both the fetus and the mother) would be not to perform abortion past 20-21 weeks.

To expand upon my criteria, the Thalamus doesn't form in human beings until the period of 23-25 weeks. The thalamus is what allows the fetus to feel pain, or anything at all. While fetuses begin forming pain receptors at 8 weeks it is a common misconception that fetuses actually feel pain at that age due to reflexive movements when prodded with objects, sharp or not.

I ask you to include all criteria that you think are relevant to deciding if it is a human life so that you don't have to add on any more criteria later on in the debate.

I feel like I'm being boxed into a contradiction with these questions, human life begins at the second the egg is fertilized, no more criteria is needed.

Thirdly, I believe it should be counted as a person because any other point is automatically inconsistent

Again, I don't think anyone being genuine to the argument would present that point.

If the fetus is a living human person at that point, then killing it would be just as terrible as killing any other living human persons. Killing it would be a homicide

According to your point here, so would having sex and getting a girl pregnant. In fact, because thousands and thousands of embedded zygotes die when fertilization occurs does that make sex a case of thousands of involuntary manslaughters?

Obviously, illegalizing abortion would cause more unsafe abortions that could endanger the mothers. My answer is rather blunt: I care about the child's life, but if a mother tries to kill her child, she ought to die.

This pro-life argument is so fallacious, it would be like saying people who take medication to kill parasites such as tapeworm should be sentenced to death for it.

It would be like saying if we make raping children illegal, then child rapists might get hurt in the process.

No, I don't think that is where the logic leads. There is a far leap and many bounds to get from exercising your right of choice over your own body to the legality of child rape, or any rape for that matter.

The only sad part is that the fetus would die in the process, but that would have happened anyway if abortion were legal.

Does this not discredit the entirety of your argument? if the fetus is going to die regardless, as you've admitted, why do we not ensure that it is legal and safe to prevent as many casualties as possible?

While I do not believe some person's rights should trump the same rights of another, I do believe some rights are inherently more valuable. For example, my right not to be murdered by you is greater than your right to do whatever you want with your body.

Comparing the act of an adult murdering another (assumed, correct me if I'm wrong) adult to the act of aborting a non-developed fetus from your own womb.

the mother's right of convenience is less than the child's right not to be murdered.

Your right of convenience is less than an innocent insect's right not to be mercilessly slaughtered, but I bet you do it en mass every day, we all do. The right to abortion isn't a thing of convenience, it's the right to know that you're not forced to bring a child into a world where it can't be properly nourished, or not being forced to adopt out your child only for him/her to have a high risk of aging out of the system without proper parents, or not being forced to add to an already super-inflated population.

and by engaging in sex, you automatically are responsible for those risks and responsibilities. You can't simply murder another person because it didn't work out. The baby, if it is a living human person, has the simple human right of not being killed.

I have been presented with this argument times aplenty, and all I have to reply with is that forced abstinence doesn't work, and is not favorable if you want people to stop having abortions.

There are several problems with this. First, this obviously doesn't apply to pregnant mothers, otherwise, pregnancy would be illegal.

There is one glaring flaw here, you are undermining the fetuses rights. If you cannot unlawfully use a pregnant woman's organs via (unwanted) pregnancy then does this mean the fetus cannot commit a crime? This may seem like a silly question but it is a serious one, if you are giving the fetus rights equal to (or in this case greater than) a woman why can this fetus not be charged in court for illegal use of someone else's organs?

1) It is a life, and you know it.

This is the correct option.

The first case should be illegal because that is 1st-degree murder. The second case should be outlawed because that would be manslaughter. The third case is actually the only one that is legally and morally justifiable. Therefore, if abortion on demand should be legal, my opponent had the burden of demonstrating that a fetus is not a life and we can certainly know that. If it even could be a life, it should not be killed.

Then again, is impregnating a woman and unknowingly killing thousands and thousands of embedded zygotes with unique genetic codes not able to be put under the second category? If they are thousands of lives and you don't know it or know that you're killing them doesn't that mean you're committing thousands of involuntary manslaughters?

Lastly, I would like to point out that the greatest evils in the history of mankind have occurred because people have decided who and who is not a human based on personal convenience. Slaveholders said black people were not human so that they could have slaves. Nazis said Jews were not human so that they could kill them, and mothers say their children are not human so that they can kill their child. Anyone who calls their own child a burden and wants to kill it should bring tears to our eyes. We are witnessing the greatest Holocaust the world has ever seen.

This is a severe case of undermining the victims of slavery and the holocaust. Comparing the brutality of forced human labor for no pay and the attempted extermination of an entire race of people to women exercising their right of choice is EXTREMELY disingenuous, and dare I say shameful for you to do.
Debate Round No. 2
buildingapologetics

Pro

I'm glad you agree that a fetus is a living human person at the moment of conception. It seems that if we both believe in the sanctity of human life, we should both be against abortions at this point. Your position seems to be very inconsistent. If it is okay to kill living human persons at 6 weeks, why not 6 months or six years? You said that you do not support abortion after around 20-21 weeks because that is when the child can feel pain. Why should pain matter when killing a person? If I cause you pain, is that worse than killing you? Is the amount of evil of murder dependant upon the pain an individual feels? If so, murdering individuals painlessly should be completely legal. If you don't agree (and I hope you don't), then pain cannot be the standard we use to decide whether someone get's to live or die.

All human persons have intrinsic value. I get that from the belief in the existence of God, and I don't think you can consistently get it any other way. Be that as it may, I don't care how you justify the idea that human persons have intrinsic value, but I really hope you do. If you don't believe human persons necessarily have intrinsic value, why is it wrong to hurt them? You can't really justify any laws then apart from self-interest.

"I feel like I'm being boxed into a contradiction with these questions, human life begins at the second the egg is fertilized, no more criteria is needed."
Well, I was trying to pin down your position, and it seems that I have done that. Whether or not you agree with them, most pro-choice people I have encountered are pro-choice because they believe the fetus is not a person. Even most abortionists wouldn't go so far as to say you can kill it even if it is a person.

"According to your point here, so would having sex and getting a girl pregnant. In fact, because thousands and thousands of embedded zygotes die when fertilization occurs does that make sex a case of thousands of involuntary manslaughters?"
When a woman is impregnated, many sperm cells die, but these are not persons since they don't have the ability to become an adult human being. Only one egg is fertilized by one sperm cell; it is these two that form a person. Whether or not other sperm cells attach to this fertilized egg is irrelevant. There is still only one zygote.
I was actually expecting you to bring up a more scientifically accurate version of that argument. It is quite often that an egg becomes fertilized and fails to implant itself in the uterus. The resultant zygote then dies; usually without the mother knowing about it. This is often provided as a reason not to be pro-life, but it is logically fallacious. Just because these zygotes may die naturally, it does not mean we can justly kill them. Just because adult human beings die, it doesn't mean we can justly kill them either. The natural deaths of children in the womb do not justify trying to kill them.

"This pro-life argument is so fallacious, it would be like saying people who take medication to kill parasites such as tapeworm should be sentenced to death for it."
Your analogy has absolutely nothing to do with my argument; perhaps you misunderstood it. My point was that we should not make acts legal based on the safety of those who commit those acts. We should not make murder legal, even if the law might hurt murderers. Similarly, if abortion should be illegal, that fact does not change if people might commit unsafe illegal abortions. I don't care about their safety, and I hope they are unsafe since they are killing human persons. Tapeworms are not human persons, so they do not have rights. Also, again, this has nothing to do with my point.

"No, I don't think that is where the logic leads. There is a far leap and many bounds to get from exercising your right of choice over your own body to the legality of child rape, or any rape for that matter."
Again, you misunderstood my argument. Again, IF abortion should be illegal, THEN that fact does not change if mothers might perform unsafe illegal abortions. I simply used rape to justify that same principle in order to address the point you brought up. I am not saying rape is as bad as abortion, in fact, it is much less evil.

"Does this not discredit the entirety of your argument? if the fetus is going to die regardless, as you've admitted, why do we not ensure that it is legal and safe to prevent as many casualties as possible?"
A fetus that is a victim of an illegal abortion would have died if abortions were legal. It does not logically follow that illegalizing abortion would not save some children. Firstly, as stated above, I don't want mothers to be safe when performing abortions. Secondly, if abortion was illegal, many mothers would have been prevented from killing their children. Some would not, and those children would have died regardless. There would still be a net increase in innocent lives saved.

"Comparing the act of an adult murdering another (assumed, correct me if I'm wrong) adult to the act of aborting a non-developed fetus from your own womb."
That was not the point being made. My point was that some rights are more important than other rights. Bodily autonomy is less important than the right to life. That's why my right to do what I want with my body ends when I try to use my body to kill another person. It is not that my rights are less important than the other person's rights; it is that right to life is more important than the right to bodily autonomy. Therefore, if the fetus is a living human person as you have agreed, then it's right to life is more important than the bodily autonomy of the mother.
Also, while I'm addressing your point, we should not decide whether to kill people based on level of development. Unless you are going to argue that a child is less valuable than an adult, the level of development does not affect personhood or value. Therefore, we cannot use it when deciding whether or not to kill a living human person inside the womb.

"Your right of convenience is less than an innocent insect's right not to be mercilessly slaughtered,"
No, my right to convenience is greater than the rights of animals. Insects are neither human nor persons, so they have no rights. Animals only have value because we assign them value. Humans are the only species that has intrinsic value, and we are the only species that has rights.

"he right to abortion isn't a thing of convenience, it's the right to know that you're not forced to bring a child into a world where it can't be properly nourished, or not being forced to adopt out your child only for him/her to have a high risk of aging out of the system without proper parents, or not being forced to add to an already super-inflated population."
Actually, you are the one who brought up the convenience of the mother, but I will address this argument. None of the reasons you listed could possibly justify killing them. We don't kill other children just because they may grow up in difficult conditions. If it is okay to kill people for these reasons, why not just kill children who are in those conditions. On the other hand, if this is not a good reason to kill older children, why is it a good reason to kill children in the womb? If we cannot kill older children to decrease the surplus population, why should we kill younger children for that reason? If the fetus is a person you cannot kill it, even if it may have a hard life. I really hope we can agree on this.

"I have been presented with this argument times aplenty, and all I have to reply with is that forced abstinence doesn't work, and is not favorable if you want people to stop having abortions."
I am not requiring abstinence; I am requiring people understand the risks and responsibilities. I don't want to prevent alcohol consumption, but people who do consume alcohol must accept the risks and responsibilities.

"There is one glaring flaw here, you are undermining the fetuses rights."
I am neither arguing for nor against the law you cited. I am simply pointing out that there is already an exception for the fetus built-in. The fetus is regarded legally as a person, so this law wouldn't even need to be modified. Since such an exception exists, this law has nothing to do with the debate. Also, again I am not making the fetus' rights greater, I am making the right to life greater. Forgive me for being picky about the wording, but it is important.

"Comparing the brutality of forced human labor for no pay and the attempted extermination of an entire race of people to women exercising their right of choice is EXTREMELY disingenuous, and dare I say shameful for you to do."
I don't think I went far enough. Abortion is not equal to those evils, it is greater than both. More human persons have been killed, and more innocent blood has been shed as a result of abortion than either slavery or the holocaust. If you do truly believe humans have intrinsic value, then you should believe the same. All three of these evils occurred because people redefined human life based on whether they wanted it to be human. This is exactly what you are doing, and it will inevitably lead to tragedy.
cakerman

Con

Hello again, I will going straight into rebuttals once again



Your position seems to be very inconsistent. If it is okay to kill living human persons at 6 weeks, why not 6 months or six years?

It isn't okay to kill a child at six weeks old, however it is acceptable to abort a fetus that is at six weeks development.


Why should pain matter when killing a person? If I cause you pain, is that worse than killing you? Is the amount of evil of murder dependant upon the pain an individual feels? If so, murdering individuals painlessly should be completely legal. If you don't agree (and I hope you don't), then pain cannot be the standard we use to decide whether someone get's to live or die.

I was asked to elaborate on my opinion as to when the fetus should be granted the right to live, and I believe the fetus gets the right to live when it is capable of feeling, not only pain, but feeling in general

All human persons have intrinsic value. I get that from the belief in the existence of God, and I don't think you can consistently get it any other way.

Please do not use religion as an argumentative point.

Your analogy has absolutely nothing to do with my argument; perhaps you misunderstood it. My point was that we should not make acts legal based on the safety of those who commit those acts.

If humans have intrinsic value (In your own words) why is this so?

Again, you misunderstood my argument. Again, IF abortion should be illegal, THEN that fact does not change if mothers might perform unsafe illegal abortions. I simply used rape to justify that same principle in order to address the point you brought up. I am not saying rape is as bad as abortion, in fact, it is much less evil.

I will use this as moment to remind everyone voting that these types of absurd and egregious comments should be considered when voting. Rape is in no way comparable to abortion, in fact being much, much, much worse than abortion.

That was not the point being made. My point was that some rights are more important than other rights.

While I do not believe some person's rights should trump the same rights of another, I do believe some rights are inherently more valuable. For example, my right not to be murdered by you is greater than your right to do whatever you want with your body. Similarly, in the case of the pregnant mother, the mother's right of convenience is less than the child's right not to be murdered.

That is clearly the comparison that was being drawn

Actually, you are the one who brought up the convenience of the mother

Refer to above rebuttal for proof against that statement

We don't kill other children just because they may grow up in difficult conditions. If it is okay to kill people for these reasons, why not just kill children who are in those conditions. On the other hand, if this is not a good reason to kill older children, why is it a good reason to kill children in the womb?

There's a glaring difference between killing a child who has lived in those conditions and from preventing a fetus who doesn't know they exist from entering such a horrible circumstance.

I am neither arguing for nor against the law you cited. I am simply pointing out that there is already an exception for the fetus built-in. The fetus is regarded legally as a person, so this law wouldn't even need to be modified. Since such an exception exists, this law has nothing to do with the debate. Also, again I am not making the fetus' rights greater, I am making the right to life greater. Forgive me for being picky about the wording, but it is important.

The fetus is legally regarded as a person, so the law still applies, as you say. You also believe that the right to live of someone who needs tissue, organ, or blood from your corpse is less than a fetus who needs the same three things from it's mother?

I don't think I went far enough. Abortion is not equal to those evils, it is greater than both. More human persons have been killed, and more innocent blood has been shed as a result of abortion than either slavery or the holocaust. If you do truly believe humans have intrinsic value, then you should believe the same. All three of these evils occurred because people redefined human life based on whether they wanted it to be human. This is exactly what you are doing, and it will inevitably lead to tragedy.

Shame on you, for trying to emotionally bait your argument misrepresenting the holocaust and slavery. Both slave owners and the higher ups of the german military never denied that blacks and jews were people, simply less valuable people. Conveniently both happened because of christianity and both were driven by christian values. This directly contradicts you saying that humans have intrinsic value purely from your belief in god, but the same belief in the same god is what caused the millions of deaths and all the anguish you are referencing.
Debate Round No. 3
buildingapologetics

Pro

"It isn't okay to kill a child at six weeks old, however, it is acceptable to abort a fetus that is at six weeks development."
Yes, I understand that that is your position; I am asking you to justify it. Why is it okay to kill one and not the other? Since we need to make laws around it, what objective reason do you have?

"I was asked to elaborate on my opinion as to when the fetus should be granted the right to live, and I believe the fetus gets the right to live when it is capable of feeling, not only pain but feeling in general"
Again, I understand your position; I am asking you to justify it.

"Please do not use religion as an argumentative point."
If you understood my point, you would know that I did not. I get my belief that we should not kill people from God. I don't care how you get it, but since our rule of law is based on this principle, I hope you agree that we should not kill human persons.

"If humans have intrinsic value (In your own words) why is this so?"
Now, this would have to involve God. As I said, you cannot consistently get it in any other way, but I certainly hope you have. This seems like a good time to clarify the idea of separation of church and state. This was never intended (at least in America) to mean separation of God and state. Both institutions of church and state were designed to be equally ruled by God. That's why we have laws against things like murder. I don't think you can justify this outside of self-preservation without God.

"I will use this as moment to remind everyone voting that these types of absurd and egregious comments should be considered when voting. Rape is in no way comparable to abortion, in fact being much, much, much worse than abortion."
Maybe you should reread my original argument again since you are clearly not understanding it in any way. I am not comparing rape to abortion, but since you ask.... Abortion is much worse in my opinion than rape since it ends a human life while rape damages one. Murder is worse than rape. If you disagree, please justify why.

"There's a glaring difference between killing a child who has lived in those conditions and from preventing a fetus who doesn't know they exist from entering such a horrible circumstance."
Okay, then I will change my example. You previously stated that you do not support abortion past 21 weeks. The above argument you used could also be applied to a child in the womb past that time. Why is such an argument valid for 5 weeks but not 25? If you still believe we should not kill children at 25 weeks, then you must admit the weakness of the above argument. If difficult circumstances do not justify abortion at 25 weeks, they cannot justify abortion at 5 weeks. You need a different reason.

"The fetus is legally regarded as a person, so the law still applies, as you say. You also believe that the right to live of someone who needs tissue, organ, or blood from your corpse is less than a fetus who needs the same three things from it's mother?"
Yes, I believe the child's right not to be torn apart is greater than the inconvenience of the mother to take care of the child. Such seems rather obvious if the fetus is a human person as you agreed.

"Shame on you, for trying to emotionally bait your argument misrepresenting the holocaust and slavery. "
Are you saying I ought not to have made the argument? Again, please justify that. More innocent lives have been destroyed because of abortion than slavery or the holocaust. Just because the deaths of the children are more silent, that does not make them and horrible.

"Conveniently both happened because of christianity and both were driven by christian values."
The Nazis were not Christians, but many of the slaveowners did claim to be. The difference is that when "Christians" do such things, they act contrary to what they are commanded to do, but when atheists do such atrocious acts, they do so in cooperation with their worldview.

"This directly contradicts you saying that humans have intrinsic value purely from your belief in god, but the same belief in the same god is what caused the millions of deaths and all the anguish you are referencing."
Again, I ask you to justify that. This displays simply lack of knowledge of history. Such people acted despite their worldview, not because of it. Also, if you can justify human intrinsic value without God, be my guest.

You still have not properly justified why a child can be killed at 19 weeks and not 21. The only reason you gave was the lack of ability to feel pain, but this is problematic. If persons in the womb can be killed if they can't feel it, why can't others be killed painlessly? Pain it seems is an inconsistent reason to kill people.

Others have used different excuses such as level of development, viability, size, etc., but all of these are inconsistent. The only consistent line to draw is at conception itself.
cakerman

Con

Again, I understand your position; I am asking you to justify it.

I justify my position based on the level of development of the fetus, as I've stated. Also, a point that I don't believe has been yet brought up is that abortion is humane in nature. The abortion process does not damage the mother, and regulations provide the guarantee that they are not paining the fetus itself.

New guidelines from the ARAC state this about euthanasia of rodents (rats and mice) before 7 days of age: Hypothermia is an acceptable method of euthanasia for fetuses and altricial neonates as long as direct contact with ice/cold surfaces is avoided.

While research shows this to be a humane method of euthanasia, although it may not appear so at first glance, and I contend the same with abortion of human fetuses. (NOTE: I am not saying we should freeze fetuses to abort)

I get my belief that we should not kill people from God. I don't care how you get it, but since our rule of law is based on this principle, I hope you agree that we should not kill human persons.

Therefore your entire argument stems from theism.

Now, this would have to involve God. As I said, you cannot consistently get it in any other way, but I certainly hope you have. This seems like a good time to clarify the idea of separation of church and state. This was never intended (at least in America) to mean separation of God and state. Both institutions of church and state were designed to be equally ruled by God. That's why we have laws against things like murder. I don't think you can justify this outside of self-preservation without God.

You still didn't answer the question. Does the intrinsic value of human beings automatically lower when being compared with a fetus? Does a person on life support who needs an organ transplant or blood transfusion have less intrinsic value than a non-born fetus? If this is so, please justify that claim and explain how the person on life support is intrinsically less valuable.

We have laws about things like murder because as social animals, human beings have evolved with empathy and the sense of right and wrong. Human beings have evolved over their history to recognize that things like murder are wrong, human beings have evolved to realize that things like rape are wrong. Ducks, for example have an evolutionary trait (in females) that prevents cases of rape. (in ducks) Humans have an evolutionary mechanism against rape too, and that is the gift of the human conscious. When us, as people see animals killing each other do we not stop and think to ourselves that the behavior of those animals is wrong? It is more a matter of perspective than "God".

Maybe you should reread my original argument again since you are clearly not understanding it in any way. I am not comparing rape to abortion, but since you ask.... Abortion is much worse in my opinion than rape since it ends a human life while rape damages one. Murder is worse than rape. If you disagree, please justify why.

You compared the morality of rape, child rape nonetheless, to the act of excersizing choice. Murder and rape are in the same caliber of evil, and I believe in the death penalty and forced sterilization as many others do, but to compare the act of murder to the act of abortion is disingenuous.

Why is such an argument valid for 5 weeks but not 25? If you still believe we should not kill children at 25 weeks, then you must admit the weakness of the above argument. If difficult circumstances do not justify abortion at 25 weeks, they cannot justify abortion at 5 weeks. You need a different reason.

One should be responsible enough to know if they can raise a child before 25 weeks gestation, human beings need to hold some level of responsibility with abortion and that is one of those responsibilities.

Yes, I believe the child's right not to be torn apart is greater than the inconvenience of the mother to take care of the child. Such seems rather obvious if the fetus is a human person as you agreed.

Again, you never answered the question. If all human beings have the same intrinsic value how come the law cannot force you to donate blood, organs or tissue to someone who is dying just because they both have the same consistent intrinsic value? Your argument is inconsistent in this regard, as you say that all human beings have intrinsic value but there appears to be alot of variation in the intrinsic value human beings have.

The Nazis were not Christians, but many of the slaveowners did claim to be. The difference is that when "Christians" do such things, they act contrary to what they are commanded to do, but when atheists do such atrocious acts, they do so in cooperation with their worldview.

Again, I ask you to justify that. This displays simply lack of knowledge of history. Such people acted despite their worldview, not because of it. Also, if you can justify human intrinsic value without God, be my guest.

The nazi's generally were not all Christians, but Hitler was, and has publically said that the jewish people were the enemies of god and that fighting against them was gods work.



You still have not properly justified why a child can be killed at 19 weeks and not 21. The only reason you gave was the lack of ability to feel pain, but this is problematic. If persons in the womb can be killed if they can't feel it, why can't others be killed painlessly? Pain it seems is an inconsistent reason to kill people.

Once the thalamus forms, the procedure cannot be done humanely with a guarantee.
Debate Round No. 4
buildingapologetics

Pro

"I justify my position based on the level of development of the fetus, as I've stated."
You justified your position by the fetus' inability to feel pain. If you now want to switch to level of development, we can talk about that. This is the exact reason I asked you to provide your criteria at the beginning rather than at the end. Saying that we can kill people based on level of human development is insane. Level of development is not a specific point, so it is an arbitrary criteria. Children are not full developed, but we cannot kill them. Human persons do not lose value based on their level of development. The societal consequences of such a view would be disastrous.

"Also, a point that I don't believe has been yet brought up is that abortion is humane in nature."
If killing people is humane, I don't care about your relative view of what is humane. It doesn't matter if the child in the womb feels pain. If the person is killed, pain or no pain, it should be illegal. Similarly, I cannot kill adults, even if I do it in a painless "humane" way.

"You still didn't answer the question. Does the intrinsic value of human beings automatically lower when being compared with a fetus?"
I do not recall you asking this question, but I will answer it now. No. All human persons are equal under my view, so the fetus deserves the same right not to die as the mother. People on life support have the same intrinsic value as the fetus. Intrinsic value does not change based on level of development, age, size, intelligence, ability to feel pain, etc. All people are equal. You re the one who cannot believe all people are equal since you admitted that fetuses are persons.

"It is more a matter of perspective than "God"."
I agree that you can explain the behavior, but you cannot explain why certain behaviors are good or bad other that personal opinion. I don't care about your personal opinion, nor should you care about mine.

"You compared the morality of rape, child rape nonetheless, to the act of excersizing choice."
Again, reread my original argument. I was not comparing the morality of rape and abortion (at least until my last apply). I was comparing the principle of caring about the safety of those committing crimes.

"One should be responsible enough to know if they can raise a child before 25 weeks gestation, human beings need to hold some level of responsibility with abortion and that is one of those responsibilities."
That does not answer the question. Why is a child of 5 weeks intrinsically less worthy than a child of 25 weeks? Neither level of development nor ability to feel pain are consistent standards.

"If all human beings have the same intrinsic value how come the law cannot force you to donate blood, organs or tissue to someone who is dying just because they both have the same consistent intrinsic value?"
You would have to ask those who wrote or support that law. I am neither for nor against that law. I were to justify that law, I would do so using an analogy. If I am walking by a lake and I see someone drowning, I have an obligation to help that person, as long as it wouldn't put me in danger. Now, if it would put me in danger, I could either make the heroic move or the cowardly one. Forced donations are a form of forced heroism. The person, as long as they are alive, might survive, so they have the right to bet on that chance rather than be a hero.

"The nazi's generally were not all Christians, but Hitler was, and has publically said that the jewish people were the enemies of god and that fighting against them was gods work."
Hitler used Christianity as a means of gaining popularity. Many historians believe Hitler, based on his private statements, was a atheist. Regardless, if he claimed to be Christian, he was going against his worldview. My position is that Christianity can support a moral foundation, I do not claim that all supposed Christians will reach that foundation.

"Once the thalamus forms, the procedure cannot be done humanely with a guarantee."
If you define humane to mean painless, then that would be true. Some people have a birth defect where they cannot feel pain. Can we kill them? If not, you cannot use this as the basis for killing children in the womb.
cakerman

Con

Apologies, I have been suffering from the flu for a few days, and still. I will leave my argument where it stands and let the voting go on. Thank you for having this debate with me!
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by cakerman 2 weeks ago
cakerman
You're a tough fighter for your pro-life values, and I appreciate that. Next round I will be making general rebuttals (whole argument) and doing a general overview and reviewing the material relevant for voting.
Posted by cakerman 2 weeks ago
cakerman
Clock is ticking
Posted by cakerman 2 weeks ago
cakerman
I believe in legal abortion, but Inconvenient-Truth is right, your argument is very fallacious and the religious aspect of it was unnecessary and didn't really add to your point backwardseden. Your point in general has the glaring flaw of "because god committed some mass homicides, people should be allowed to have abortions"
Posted by Inconvenient_Truth 2 weeks ago
Inconvenient_Truth
@backwardseden: A religious argument has not entered this debate so any anti-religion rhetoric that you spew is just flack for the strawman. Please let it rest, it really is tiresome.

Besides this, your argument succumbs to the two wrongs make a right fallacy. That is, if you are meaning to assert that abortion on demand should be legal because the God of the Christian Bible "favors abortion".
Posted by backwardseden 2 weeks ago
backwardseden
@ Inconvenient_Truth - Absolutely 100% false. How educated are you on what religion/ god/ jesus does to the abortion factor? Why don't you look it up with all your grunts and growls? Sheesh. Oh and in actuality god favors abortion in his bible by a number of verses thus leaving Pro buildingapologetics out of luck and NOT knowing his source material AT ALL as always.
Hosea 9: 11-16 11 As for Ephraim, their glory shall fly away like a bird, from the birth, and from the womb, and from the conception. 12 Though they bring up their children, yet will I bereave them, that there shall not be a man left: yea, woe also to them when I depart from them! 13 Ephraim, as I saw Tyrus, is planted in a pleasant place: but Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. 14 Give them, O Lord: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. 15 All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters. 16 Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb."

Hosea 13:16 "Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." Wow such a charming family loving truly huggable caring kind snookums verse that should absolutely be taken to heart by every single person on the planet.

2 Kings 15:16 "16 Then Menahem smote Tiphsah, and all that were therein, and the coasts thereof from Tirzah: because they opened not to him, therefore he smote it; and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up."

Of course there's plenty of other verses where god knowingly commits deliberate genocide, for no reason at all, and pregnant were included in some of them, obviously, thus abortions!
Posted by cakerman 2 weeks ago
cakerman
I apologize, as I don't like taking my debates into comments sections, but my opponents gross negligence of the victims and family of victims of genocide and slavery should be considered during the voting period.
Posted by Inconvenient_Truth 2 weeks ago
Inconvenient_Truth
@ Missmedic: I see that you are still presuming that teens are the main contributor to the number of abortions each year.

"This would eliminate repeat offenders and help reduce the impoverished teen population the number one contributor to the abortion problem."

Impoveished teen population? Do you have any references for these statements? Have you read my post below or checked out the data at the Guttmacker Institute? It's right on their facts sheet, fairly easy to get to.
Posted by missmedic 2 weeks ago
missmedic
"Lastly, I would like to point out that the greatest evils in the history of mankind have occurred because people have decided who and who is not a human based on personal convenience."
Actually the greatest evils in the history of mankind have occurred because of moral certainty.
"Anyone who calls their own child a burden and wants to kill it should bring tears to our eyes."
Yet many Christians believe that their own gay child is a burden and yes some want to kill them.
Abortion is but a symptom of a greater problem that for the most part remains unaddressed. And so the symptoms persist.............................
Posted by missmedic 3 weeks ago
missmedic
If you are going to use law enforcement to control abortion, I would suggest mandatory sterilization of both the man and the women found guilty of an unwanted pregnancy. This would eliminate repeat offenders and help reduce the impoverished teen population the number one contributor to the abortion problem.
Posted by Inconvenient_Truth 3 weeks ago
Inconvenient_Truth
I don't like to include comments to active debates that could affect the arguments for either side, but I do make exceptions to refute poor arguments posted by others in the comments section.

@Backwardseden:
Your rabid attack on religion is totally premature and may even be completely pointless if Buildingapologetics refrains from making the religious argument. At this point, your ranting has done nothing more than beat a strawman.

@Missmedic:
Promoting prosperity would certainly help to reduce the number of abortion procedures per year but it's no silver bullet. Since the early 1970s the mean household income has increased fairly steadily. Yet only until now, 40 years later, are we finally seeing fewer abortions per year than the years following Roe v. Wade (according to the Guttmacker Institute). There are obviously other factors, possibly even factors with greater influence, including the increasing amount of abortion regulations.
I believe at one time the majority of woman undergoing an abortion were poor, unmarried, childless and in thier teens. That's not the case any longer. More often than not, the women aborting their pregnancies are: white, in their early twenties, had already had at least one child, were unmarried but were cohabitating in the month they became pregnant, and had used contraception at the time. The most common reason given was that they did not want to be a single mother or they were having problems with their husband or partner. Other reasons, though reported less frequently, included the belief that another baby was not affordable, was the belief that a baby would interfere with their job, school or ability to care for dependents and concern for other individuals.

This information contradicts your proposal that "prosperity fixes everything". In fact, abstinence until marriage (or stable relationship) seems to be the prime solution. Of course, like increasing prosperity, easier said than done.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DawnBringerRiven 5 days ago
DawnBringerRiven
buildingapologeticscakermanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con makes bare assertion after bare assertion in this debate. Con gives little to no reasons for many of his refutations and commonly misinterprets and plainly dismisses Pro's arguments. For example: Pro makes the assertion that pain is an irrelevant criteria for not allowing abortion and thus, Con should agree that abortion is wrong on every level of development. Con does not counter this claim and instead restates his original statement. When all of your refutations to paragraph long points only consists of one or two sentences, you should know you're doing something wrong. Pro gets the convincing argument point.